It doesn't say having the 15 guns and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition is a crime.  Lets take the entire paragraph and put it into context:

"Investigators found 15 guns, including seven rifles, and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition at Hasson's basement apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland. He researched how to make homemade bombs and mortars, studied sniper training and used his government computer to search for information about Nazis and Adolf Hitler, prosecutors said."

 This isn't a guy looking up good hunting spots.  I would say under the totality of the information I would be more concerned about someone researching improvised explosives with a single gun, than someone who is researching the best blinds for duck hunting with 20 thousand guns.

 Context.  This man is committing crimes and is an opioid abuser.  This means anything, including red cars, guns, knives, bananas, Fruit Loops etc. are more dangerous in his hands than people who abide by the law and are not addicts.

"They said: “…accused of stockpiling weapons…”
That is NOT a crime in any way whatsoever."

 It is if you are an active drug abuser:

"He also was charged with possession of a firearm by an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance,"

 Context.  This is about a person who is an active drug addict, and as such it is illegal for him to stockpile weapons, just as it is illegal for him to own one.  

 Where does the article say it is a crime for all people to "stockpile" weapons?  Nowhere.

"The problem is what the DFI intend to do with it."

 Incorrect.  Possession of a firearm by an active drug abuser is illegal, even if that weapon is intended to be used as a tire-chuck during a roadside tire change.  

 This man is not legally allowed to own one firearm.   For those of us that follow and use actual law and not metaphorical philosophy of unpracticed law, the totality of circumstance is paramount which includes Intent and Ability.  Not everyone is a risk-factor for looking up how to make bombs, but someone who is an active drug user, has illegal silencers (why not register them?) has drafted multiple statements of intent to kill, and has the means to act upon those activities is a risk factor.  

 Also he was actually breaking the law by owning any number of firearms above the count of zero.

I don't believe the article made it clear that it was illegal for a addict to have a weapon let alone stockpile them.  I was unaware of that law and the writer made it seem stockpiling and a 1000 rounds was a crime.

 That's interesting as I did not get the impression that it is "illegal" for all people to stockpile weapons, only that the person in the article was doing that:

"Two of the four counts in Hasson’s indictment charged him with illegally possessing unregistered and unserialized silencers. He also was charged with possession of a firearm by an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance, and illegal possession of tramadol, an opioid painkiller."


 This is the point of discussion though right?
 

Eegore wrote on 10/04/19 at 07:47:31:

"...  This is the point of discussion though right?..." 

The point is that,  "15 guns, 1,000 rounds", raises absolutely NO red flags to a person who knows, has, used firearms.

Yet the 'gun Hater', believes that is a a HUGE number,
and anyone that has that MANY/MUCH,
Really needs to be controlled by a  Red Law!

The 'reporter', took full advantage of that,
implied that, "15 guns, 1,000 rounds", is not accepted.

Yes, the guy is/was a DFI.

"The 'reporter', took full advantage of that,
implied that, "15 guns, 1,000 rounds", is not accepted."

 How did you arrive at that?

 I don't see anything in the article that indicates that any other human besides the defendant in the article is the subject of the information contained within the article.

 It specifically says "Investigators found 15 guns, including seven rifles, and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition at Hasson's basement apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland."  

 This indicates to me that these items were found in his and only his basement.  Where does it say that any other human can or can not own these items with the exemption of those currently abusing drugs?

Eegore wrote on 10/04/19 at 08:50:13:

"...   How did you arrive at that? ..."

The inference of the reporter.

So many ways  of describing, 'accused of this and that'
with out inferring, that legal things, are Illegal.


"Put a Frog in a pan of cold water"